Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Trump Administration

Posts

If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

There is no place in American politics for a toothless minority party committed to losing elections by abandoning their constituents' interests and desires in an ineffective and doomed effort to offer moral support for procedural reform.

Democrats have done a shitty job of demonstrating that they understand how Republicans feel, without that there will never be a strong foundation for negotiation or compromise. Every effort spent on fruitless obstructionism is a wasted opportunity for a deeper conversation. It needs to stop. Take the high road.

The way Republicans have demonstrated that they feel is that they feel they should be given everything they want without compromise. It is not taking the high road to give in to that.

The one tiny glimmer of hope I have for Trump is that I don't think he really cares about Republicans at all and he might be willing to make concessions if he gets to look good doing it.

What the hell is the high road in this situation? To just let the republicans nominate the most unqualified bigoted assholes possible and call it "building a platform of understanding for future negotiating?" Why the hell would the republicans bother negotiating with dems if they just let them get everything they want? What's to negotiate at that point?

Obstruction as a legitimate way of voicing protest and concerns is absolutely fine. Dems shouldn't obstruct because that's what republicans did, they should obstruct because the republican nominations are unqualified and will hurt the Dem's constituents, you know, the people they represent. Dems aren't planning obstructionism because theyre opposed to republican nominations in general, they are going to do so as a way to say "these specific nominations are disasters and will ruin the country"

As for understanding republicans, what's to understand? They want power at any cost. Any values or issues they cite melt away at the opportunity for more power. Trump confirmed that. How do you develop understanding and begin negotiating with a party who just elected a guy on a platform of utter partisanship, with whom they share no values whatsoever. Trump proves the pointlessness of tying to engage in good faith with Repbulicans as if they cared about their own values.

Gladapple I'd like to be clear here: No one here is suggesting Democrats obstruct Republicans solely because they are Republicans. People are saying to obstruct them when they put forward demonstrably bad policy or nominations. I don't believe anyone here is opposed to the two parties compromising on either of those. But the history of the last few years demonstrated Republicans refusing to do so when the minority party and I find it unlikely that they'll start now.

Democrats have done a shitty job of demonstrating that they understand how Republicans feel, without that there will never be a strong foundation for negotiation or compromise. Every effort spent on fruitless obstructionism is a wasted opportunity for a deeper conversation. It needs to stop. Take the high road.

Don't come in here and act like Obama hadn't tried to negotiate and compromise for eight years and Republicans being petulant children the whole while about it, demanding concession after concession and then stonewalling once those concessions were given.

Republicans had a meeting where the committed to full bore obstructionism before Obama even took office.

The idea that it's the Democrats fault for not understanding is entirely a fabrication.

Democrats have done a shitty job of demonstrating that they understand how Republicans feel, without that there will never be a strong foundation for negotiation or compromise. Every effort spent on fruitless obstructionism is a wasted opportunity for a deeper conversation. It needs to stop. Take the high road.

Don't come in here and act like Obama hadn't tried to negotiate and compromise for eight years and Republicans being petulant children the whole while about it, demanding concession after concession and then stonewalling once those concessions were given.

Republicans had a meeting where the committed to full bore obstructionism before Obama even took office.

The idea that it's the Democrats fault for not understanding is entirely a fabrication.

Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

NATO countries don't pull their fair share in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The reason NATO has worked for so long under this dynamic is cause the US spends well over our requirement. Places like France, and the UK don't spend as much as they're supposed to (I think it's like 2% of GDP? Can't recall the exact number but it's somewhere in the 2-4% range).

In that sense Trump is kinda right that we need to go back to the table and figure out these agreements cause as of right now we're pulling the majority of the weight for such a broad coalition.

The thing with the CIA though is a bit different. It's harder to make changes that aren't just pure policy or foreign policy type things but bureaucratic problems. And what's more is that it comes at a time that reeks of corruption and political purging. Hopefully the incoming administration won't be able to actually do a whole lot on that front since people have contracts and can't be fired that easily in the IC (you don't get fired, you leave more or less). I do think it's fucking hilarious that Flynn wants to rotate other agencies into the field as if other IC agencies have any reason at all to do so. The CIA is the sole responsible party of HUMINT. They have actual reasons to be in the field when there isn't a full blown war going on -- gathering intelligence, making network connections, recruiting sources, covert operations and other undercover work. What does he expect, NSA analysts to be in the desert of Syria listening to ISIL broadcasts on a shitty radio?

We have been over this but that isn't actually true. I mean, its technically true, but not substantively true.

There is, there are a handful of states that don't pay their "fair share" of GDP into defense.

However, they largely fall into two categories

1) Buffer states: These states exist in NATO to get trampled by Russia and bog them down long enough for the rest of the military forces to respond. Their GDP is too low for 2% to make much of a difference anyway. What mainly matters is the land and the people. If there is a conventional war it is these states which will bear the vast majority of the costs, in lives, suffering, and infrastructure. Their defense tax should be lower as a result of this.

2) Germany. No one in Europe wants them to build up a military. Germany has an excuse.

Maybe they should. Its a repeated prisoners dilemma. In the short term defecting is works out for you. If the other guy doesn't defect with you you just keep on doing it.

Optimal strategy is to defect immediately after the other guy defects and then randomly cooperate later in the future and see if they follow.

It sounds nice to say "no don't obstruct just because" but if we don't then we're going to get fucked by people with a "defect" strategy.

Edit2: You might respond "but what about the norms which keep the nation together". And the answer is that if they're going to keep defecting then the norms are gone. The only way to restore the norms is to fuck them as hard as they fucked us until they realize that there is a reason the norms existed in the first place.... or we all die in a civil war, one of the two.

Maybe they should. Its a repeated prisoners dilemma. In the short term defecting is works out for you. If the other guy doesn't defect with you you just keep on doing it.

Optimal strategy is to defect immediately after the other guy defects and then randomly cooperate later in the future and see if they follow.

It sounds nice to say "no don't obstruct just because" but if we don't then we're going to get fucked by people with a "defect" strategy.

Edit2: You might respond "but what about the norms which keep the nation together". And the answer is that if they're going to keep defecting then the norms are gone. The only way to restore the norms is to fuck them as hard as they fucked us until they realize that there is a reason the norms existed in the first place.... or we all die in a civil war, one of the two.

I'll quote a couple of old posts I made in the SCOTUS thread with a game theory perspective on this:

Not to "defend" it, per se, but this is the expected outcome given rational agents. The Republicans just played Prisoner's Dilemma and won. They defected while the Democrats cooperated, and they were paid out for doing so.

Except this is iterative Prisoner's Dilemma. And in iterative Prisoner's Dilemma, while double cooperation is possible, any break in cooperation tends to lead to degeneration into the double-defect equilibrium. This is the rational option now for Democrats, at least in the short-term; as the Republicans are defecting whether or not the Democrats are cooperating, then the rational choices are for the Democrats to also defect, and hope the Republicans come to their senses, or for them to perpetually cooperate, essentially handing the game over the Republicans.

With this payout grid that's been assembled by the electorate, the choices for the Democrats are losing quickly, with some hope for course-correction (block), losing slowly, with no hope for course-correction (cooperate), or finding some way to change the entire game (change the electoratal calculus), but they're going to be at at disadvantage even in that last option due to SCOTUS control, gerrymandering, redistricting, and incoming anti-immigration/voter suppression policies.

Well, FYI, "tit for tat" is generally considered the optimal strategy for iterated, deterministic, discrete, infinite Prison's dilemma (which is how I abstracted the situation, rightly or wrongly). It's described on Wikipedia thusly:

The winning deterministic strategy was tit for tat, which Anatol Rapoport developed and entered into the tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move. Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "tit for tat with forgiveness." When the opponent defects, on the next move, the player sometimes cooperates anyway, with a small probability (around 1–5%). This allows for occasional recovery from getting trapped in a cycle of defections. The exact probability depends on the line-up of opponents.

By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.

Nice

The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore, a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely self-interested reasons first.

Retaliating

However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such players.

Forgiving

Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.

Non-envious

The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent.

If the Democrats were to follow this strategy, at this point, they should be defecting and they should continue defecting until Republicans cooperate, and every once in a while they should pop their head up and cooperate a few times to see if the Republicans switch over in response, if they're using "tit for tat with forgiveness".*

The problem is, of course, that modern Republicans do not seem to be using "tit for tat", or really any strategy that would be considered "successful" - they're certainly not nice or forgiving, and it's in doubt whether they're non-envious. In this case, when you know the opponent's strategy and it's locked in - as opposed to when you do not know or it's random (i.e. in tournaments) - "tit for tat" may no longer be optimal. And in the case that Republicans are really playing "always defect", the optimal counter-strategy is also "always defect," in which case the US is screwed.

* Note, generally in Prisoner's Dilemma, the two sides can't coordinate their moves, so when you "forgive" and cooperate with a defector, you have to do it for a few rounds in a row to send the "signal". In politics, in theory, the Democrats should just be able to "reach out" to Republicans to assess their willingness to cooperate.

Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

NATO countries don't pull their fair share in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The reason NATO has worked for so long under this dynamic is cause the US spends well over our requirement. Places like France, and the UK don't spend as much as they're supposed to (I think it's like 2% of GDP? Can't recall the exact number but it's somewhere in the 2-4% range).

In that sense Trump is kinda right that we need to go back to the table and figure out these agreements cause as of right now we're pulling the majority of the weight for such a broad coalition.

In addition to the points others made, the US pays for more than its 'fair share' because it dictates policy. Why would allied states jump to spend on their militaries when in the past the US has made it abundantly clear that said militaries will only be permitted to fulfill goals the US desires?

This is the price you pay as the hegemon: either you spend more on your military to make up for your close allies/clients, or you spend more on your military because those allies become more distant.

Maybe they should. Its a repeated prisoners dilemma. In the short term defecting is works out for you. If the other guy doesn't defect with you you just keep on doing it.

Optimal strategy is to defect immediately after the other guy defects and then randomly cooperate later in the future and see if they follow.

It sounds nice to say "no don't obstruct just because" but if we don't then we're going to get fucked by people with a "defect" strategy.

Edit2: You might respond "but what about the norms which keep the nation together". And the answer is that if they're going to keep defecting then the norms are gone. The only way to restore the norms is to fuck them as hard as they fucked us until they realize that there is a reason the norms existed in the first place.... or we all die in a civil war, one of the two.

I'll quote a couple of old posts I made in the SCOTUS thread with a game theory perspective on this:

Not to "defend" it, per se, but this is the expected outcome given rational agents. The Republicans just played Prisoner's Dilemma and won. They defected while the Democrats cooperated, and they were paid out for doing so.

Except this is iterative Prisoner's Dilemma. And in iterative Prisoner's Dilemma, while double cooperation is possible, any break in cooperation tends to lead to degeneration into the double-defect equilibrium. This is the rational option now for Democrats, at least in the short-term; as the Republicans are defecting whether or not the Democrats are cooperating, then the rational choices are for the Democrats to also defect, and hope the Republicans come to their senses, or for them to perpetually cooperate, essentially handing the game over the Republicans.

With this payout grid that's been assembled by the electorate, the choices for the Democrats are losing quickly, with some hope for course-correction (block), losing slowly, with no hope for course-correction (cooperate), or finding some way to change the entire game (change the electoratal calculus), but they're going to be at at disadvantage even in that last option due to SCOTUS control, gerrymandering, redistricting, and incoming anti-immigration/voter suppression policies.

Well, FYI, "tit for tat" is generally considered the optimal strategy for iterated, deterministic, discrete, infinite Prison's dilemma (which is how I abstracted the situation, rightly or wrongly). It's described on Wikipedia thusly:

The winning deterministic strategy was tit for tat, which Anatol Rapoport developed and entered into the tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move. Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "tit for tat with forgiveness." When the opponent defects, on the next move, the player sometimes cooperates anyway, with a small probability (around 1–5%). This allows for occasional recovery from getting trapped in a cycle of defections. The exact probability depends on the line-up of opponents.

By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.

Nice

The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore, a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely self-interested reasons first.

Retaliating

However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such players.

Forgiving

Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.

Non-envious

The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent.

If the Democrats were to follow this strategy, at this point, they should be defecting and they should continue defecting until Republicans cooperate, and every once in a while they should pop their head up and cooperate a few times to see if the Republicans switch over in response, if they're using "tit for tat with forgiveness".*

The problem is, of course, that modern Republicans do not seem to be using "tit for tat", or really any strategy that would be considered "successful" - they're certainly not nice or forgiving, and it's in doubt whether they're non-envious. In this case, when you know the opponent's strategy and it's locked in - as opposed to when you do not know or it's random (i.e. in tournaments) - "tit for tat" may no longer be optimal. And in the case that Republicans are really playing "always defect", the optimal counter-strategy is also "always defect," in which case the US is screwed.

* Note, generally in Prisoner's Dilemma, the two sides can't coordinate their moves, so when you "forgive" and cooperate with a defector, you have to do it for a few rounds in a row to send the "signal". In politics, in theory, the Democrats should just be able to "reach out" to Republicans to assess their willingness to cooperate.

Yea that is what brought it to mind. I just try to be non-technical when I can.

Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

NATO countries don't pull their fair share in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The reason NATO has worked for so long under this dynamic is cause the US spends well over our requirement. Places like France, and the UK don't spend as much as they're supposed to (I think it's like 2% of GDP? Can't recall the exact number but it's somewhere in the 2-4% range).

In that sense Trump is kinda right that we need to go back to the table and figure out these agreements cause as of right now we're pulling the majority of the weight for such a broad coalition.

In addition to the points others made, the US pays for more than its 'fair share' because it dictates policy. Why would allied states jump to spend on their militaries when in the past the US has made it abundantly clear that said militaries will only be permitted to fulfill goals the US desires?

This is the price you pay as the hegemon: either you spend more on your military to make up for your close allies/clients, or you spend more on your military because those allies become more distant.

Thinking back on key NATO decisions... Afghanistan was all US, obviously. Libya was primarily driven by the French/UK? Who also wanted to intervene in Syria, but the US said no. Who made the call on Kosovo? I vaguely recall Clinton being a key driver, but I am unsure.

I imagine one of two futures. One of which is that we allow states to have radically different freedoms available to their citizens, such that if you are liberal you are pretty much forced into a blue state to enjoy many freedoms you currently take for granted, and vis versa for Republicans. The other future is one where we have something akin to 8 year dictatorships. Each party upon gaining power uses it in ways not envisioned by the constitution to oppress the other party and its voters.

Yes, how could anyone possibly live with the oppression of being free to not have a single abortion, of being free to marry whomever they want, of being free to choose what to do with their life regardless of their gender or skin color, of being able to vote easily and conveniently.

Just the thought of all that oppression makes me sick.

At least use guns or taxes or something as your example.

Also fuck this analysis. Northern California, even much of the area North of Sacramento (where I'm from, incidentally) is far more purple than described. And the areas that aren't are so sparsely populated they don't fucking matter. It's like worrying about politics in the Mojave.

Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

Uh, what? In what way is Trump right on NATO exactly?

NATO countries don't pull their fair share in defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The reason NATO has worked for so long under this dynamic is cause the US spends well over our requirement. Places like France, and the UK don't spend as much as they're supposed to (I think it's like 2% of GDP? Can't recall the exact number but it's somewhere in the 2-4% range).

In that sense Trump is kinda right that we need to go back to the table and figure out these agreements cause as of right now we're pulling the majority of the weight for such a broad coalition.

In addition to the points others made, the US pays for more than its 'fair share' because it dictates policy. Why would allied states jump to spend on their militaries when in the past the US has made it abundantly clear that said militaries will only be permitted to fulfill goals the US desires?

This is the price you pay as the hegemon: either you spend more on your military to make up for your close allies/clients, or you spend more on your military because those allies become more distant.

Thinking back on key NATO decisions... Afghanistan was all US, obviously. Libya was primarily driven by the French/UK? Who also wanted to intervene in Syria, but the US said no. Who made the call on Kosovo? I vaguely recall Clinton being a key driver, but I am unsure.

Kosovo was Clinton not wanting to get punted around by Milosevic again.

UK/French had ground troops in the former Yugoslavia for years before the US did much military there. They were there as UN peacekeepers, not NATO forces, though. NATO became significantly involved once the US became significantly involved.

NATO does nothing without the US wanting it. Anything that individual members want to do, but NATO does not, is not done under the NATO banner (see France in Rwanda).

WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would restructure and pare back the nation’s top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said, prompted by a belief that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has become bloated and politicized.

Trump will only consider intelligence agencies not politicized when they are completely politicized in his favor (Comey's letter is not political while not prosecuting Clinton is political), so that really worries me.

Paring down intelligence agencies would provide plenty of opportunities for getting rid of dissent that might reach conclusions the administration doesn't like.

Well, that's worrying as fuck. This is full on failed state purges of the government stuff.

WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would restructure and pare back the nation’s top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said, prompted by a belief that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has become bloated and politicized.

Trump will only consider intelligence agencies not politicized when they are completely politicized in his favor (Comey's letter is not political while not prosecuting Clinton is political), so that really worries me.

Paring down intelligence agencies would provide plenty of opportunities for getting rid of dissent that might reach conclusions the administration doesn't like.

Well, that's worrying as fuck. This is full on failed state purges of the government stuff.

Gutting the intelligence communities and restaffing them with unqualified cronies who repeat the party lines is a great idea until the buildings start blowing up again.

Just ask Erdogan and the people of istanbul how well that worked for Turkey.

There's no compromising with Republicans now. We're already seeing the horrible shit they have planned, both in Congresd and in the White House. If they put up an awful piece of legislation or an awful person for SCOTUS, then the Dems need to block it hard.

Because I bet if they let some shit through in the hopes of future cooperation from the GOP, it's not going to work. Not only will they refuse to cooperate, they'll blame Democrats for their awful shit. "I can't believe you let me do this! You suck."

There's no compromising with Republicans now. We're already seeing the horrible shit they have planned, both in Congresd and in the White House. If they put up an awful piece of legislation or an awful person for SCOTUS, then the Dems need to block it hard.

Because I bet if they let some shit through in the hopes of future cooperation from the GOP, it's not going to work. Not only will they refuse to cooperate, they'll blame Democrats for their awful shit. "I can't believe you let me do this! You suck."

Dr. Manhattan: She was pregnant. And you gunned her down.
Edward Blake: That's right. And you know what, you watched me. You could've turned the gun into steam, the bullets into mercury, the bottle into goddamned snowflakes but you didn't, did you? You really don't give a damn about human beings. You're driftin' out of touch, Doc. God help us all.

I mean sure oppose it because if you give an inch they'll take a mile, but concealed carry is really not a big deal.

The issue isn't concealed carry. The issue is that they're doing the same thing they did to credit cards - kneecapping local regulations by forcing states to have to accept the lowest common denominator.

The sovereignty of states is only propped up in the first place to let republicans get away with things. It doesn't apply when it would inconvenience them.

Of course they believe in state's rights. But some states have more rights than others.

If the Democrats start justifying obstructionism just because Republicans did it to them in the past then it's proof that the "when they go low, we go high" mantra is bullshit. Both parties are exactly the same when it comes to pushing their agenda. There are no high roads here.

There is no place in American politics for a toothless minority party committed to losing elections by abandoning their constituents' interests and desires in an ineffective and doomed effort to offer moral support for procedural reform.

The toothlessness of the Democrats and the idea that it's not if, but by how much they'll compromise things they stand for might have been part of the problem in 2016

I think fighting for what we believe in can only pay off, because staying the course has seen us cede almost enough of the government to the Republicans to write their own constitution

As a minority party that's all you have, either you block shit your constituents don't want or you might as well give up. Maybe if the GOP ever become adults we can do something different than that, who knows

Efforts to defang the House’s quasi-official ethics watchdog office scored most of the attention early this week as the GOP advanced a “rules” package to govern the body during this Congress. But Republicans tucked a provision into the plan which bars the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from counting a dramatic spike in deficit spending spurred by an ObamaCare repeal. Language in the resolution bars the CBO from tallying the cost of any ObamaCare repeal bill that bloats deficit spending by more than $5 billion over the next decade and $20 billion over the next four decades.

The GOP found a brilliant way to deal with the costs of any ACA repeal they might pass and Trump might sign.

Efforts to defang the House’s quasi-official ethics watchdog office scored most of the attention early this week as the GOP advanced a “rules” package to govern the body during this Congress. But Republicans tucked a provision into the plan which bars the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from counting a dramatic spike in deficit spending spurred by an ObamaCare repeal. Language in the resolution bars the CBO from tallying the cost of any ObamaCare repeal bill that bloats deficit spending by more than $5 billion over the next decade and $20 billion over the next four decades.

The GOP found a brilliant way to deal with the costs of any ACA repeal they might pass and Trump might sign.

Efforts to defang the House’s quasi-official ethics watchdog office scored most of the attention early this week as the GOP advanced a “rules” package to govern the body during this Congress. But Republicans tucked a provision into the plan which bars the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from counting a dramatic spike in deficit spending spurred by an ObamaCare repeal. Language in the resolution bars the CBO from tallying the cost of any ObamaCare repeal bill that bloats deficit spending by more than $5 billion over the next decade and $20 billion over the next four decades.

...How will that work? So they can still have a deficit from this, but they can't acknowledge it?
Is this Homer Simpson shouting "If I don't see it, it's not illegal!"?

The GOP found a brilliant way to deal with the costs of any ACA repeal they might pass and Trump might sign.

Efforts to defang the House’s quasi-official ethics watchdog office scored most of the attention early this week as the GOP advanced a “rules” package to govern the body during this Congress. But Republicans tucked a provision into the plan which bars the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from counting a dramatic spike in deficit spending spurred by an ObamaCare repeal. Language in the resolution bars the CBO from tallying the cost of any ObamaCare repeal bill that bloats deficit spending by more than $5 billion over the next decade and $20 billion over the next four decades.

The GOP found a brilliant way to deal with the costs of any ACA repeal they might pass and Trump might sign.

Efforts to defang the House’s quasi-official ethics watchdog office scored most of the attention early this week as the GOP advanced a “rules” package to govern the body during this Congress. But Republicans tucked a provision into the plan which bars the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from counting a dramatic spike in deficit spending spurred by an ObamaCare repeal. Language in the resolution bars the CBO from tallying the cost of any ObamaCare repeal bill that bloats deficit spending by more than $5 billion over the next decade and $20 billion over the next four decades.

Ha. ha. hahaha.

"Democrats need to be held accountable for their runaway spending! What now? Accountability? For REPUBLICANS? That just gets in the way of growth and freedom"